That is the title of a recent post on the orgtheory blog, written by Indiana University sociologist Fabio Rojas. After surveying several exchanges between me and critics of my work, Rojas says,
Overall, I am on “Team Lubet.” I won’t relitigate earlier issues, but I will say that ethnographies are not exempt from the ethical principles that govern human behavior in general and social research in particular.
I appreciate the affirmation, but I do want to clarify one of Rojas's points:
[Ethnography] only works if, within reason, the individual data points are valid (e.g., they report truth) and reliable (e.g., others who investigate report similar data). This is the same standard we hold for any research. Without this standard of evidence, ethnographic field notes are no more valuable than a survey filled out by randomly choosing answers.
Ethnographic data actually fall into two broad categories: assertions of fact, and statements of belief (or intentions, or desires, or recollections). I believe Rojas was referring to the former when he rightly called (as I do) for validity and reliability. But of course, informants' statements can be important for non-truth reasons as well, such as disclosing their aspirations, intentions, fears, associations, beliefs, and desires. In fact, the latter may be more important in describing a particular community.
For lawyers, these categories are familiar from the hearsay rule's distinction between (1) statements offered for their truth value, and (2) statements offered for another purpose, such as state of mind or future intention.
I have never suggested that ethnographers ought to adopt some version of the hearsay rule, or that they ought to report only bedrock facts (which may or may not be discernible, or even exist). Rather, I have only called upon them to recognize the difference between facts and beliefs, which may require verification, and to distinguish clearly between the two in their writing.
You can read Rojas's post here.
I concur generally with Steve's comments, but disagree to the extent of so-called "auto-ethnography." Auto-ethnography, to the extent is has any validity at all, is a form of autobiography, i.e., literature, and not social science in any sense.
Yasiel Puig versus Pirates dot jpeg